Cited by 88Action Observation and SynchronizationEmbodied and Extended CognitionComplex Systems and Dynamics

Reciprocity and alignment: quantifying coupling in dynamic interactions

Open access
Dumas, Guillaume, Fairhurst, Merle T.·2021·Royal Society Open Science

Abstract

we do things together, suggesting that becoming aligned relies on a reciprocal exchange of information. The next step is to develop richer computational methods that quantify the degree of coupling and describe the nature of the information exchange. We put forward a definition of coupling, comparing it to related terminology and detail, available computational methods and the level of organization to which they pertain, presenting them as a hierarchy from weakest to richest forms of coupling. The rationale is that a temporally coherent link between two dynamical systems at the lowest level of organization sustains mutual adaptation and alignment at the highest level. Postulating that when we do things together, we do so dynamically over time and we argue that to determine and measure instances of true reciprocity in social exchanges is key. Along with this computationally rich definition of coupling, we present challenges for the field to be tackled by a diverse community working towards a dynamic account of social cognition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.210138

Cites

139 of 140 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Leader-follower nonverbal tasks are characterized by an asymmetric distribution of information between co-actors, where the leader has access to task instructions, while the follower must rely on the leader's actions to achieve the shared goal.

    “Leader–follower nonverbal tasks are characterized by an asymmetric distribution of information between co‐actors, where the leader has access to task instructions, while the follower must rely on the leader's actions to achieve the shared goal (Konvalinka et al. 2014; Candidi et al. 2015; Dumas and Fairhurst 2021; Gallotti et al. 2017).”

    From Interpersonal Physiological Synchrony During Dyadic Joint Action Is Increased by Task Novelty and Reduced by Social Anxiety (2025) · cites this paper as Dumas and Fairhurst 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 141 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [47]Marsh KL. 2010 Sociality from an ecological, dynamical perspective. In Grounding sociality: neurons, minds, and culture (eds GE Gün, R Semin), pp. 43- 71. London, UK: Psychology Press.
  2. [52]Trevarthen C. 1979 Communication and cooperation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity. In Before speech: the beginning of human communication (ed. M Bullowa), pp. 321- 347. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. [89]Kinsbourne M, Helt M. 2011 Social entrainment of typically developing and autistic children. In The neuropsychology of autism (ed. D Fein), pp. 339- 365. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dumas, G., & Fairhurst, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
  • Universität der Bundeswehr München (DE)
Corresponding author
Fairhurst, Merle T.
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2021-05
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
210138-210138
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162721171
Cited by
88
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • IMI initiative-EU AIMS2-TRIALS (777394)
  • Innovatives Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (115300)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Systems and Dynamics
Keywords
coupling, reciprocity, alignment, information sharing, social cognition, dynamic interaction, mutual adaptation, computational methods, social exchange

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review